Texas Governor’s Letter to Biden RE: The Invasion of America’s Southern Border

Below is Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s letter to Joe Biden regarding the invasion at the southern Border. Governor Abbott’s communication is candid, factual, and in the best interest of his State of Texas. As the Chief Executive Officer for his state, Governor Abbott defines most clearly his authority (actually the authority of every Governor as granted by the U.S. Constitution) to defend his state and the proper citizens therein, against all invasions and attempts to collapse the sovereignty of the state.

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, of the United States Constitution states, “an acknowledgement of the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders.” Particularly fascinating is U.S. case Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 419 (2012). As I write this, I am in my home State of Arizona. It is terribly sad Arizona does not have a Governor who can lead, not merely manage; who can take his rightful, legal, constitutional authority and do what the Texas Governor did. I can think of no higher calling or responsibility a Chief Executive Officer; whether he/she be a Mayor, Governor or President can perform than to protect the very people who placed them into office with the prayer that the Chief Executive would watch over and protect the citizen as well as their city, state or this great nation. So very many Governors have failed, and failed miserably.

Thank you Governor Abbott for demonstrating what a true leader is like. The people of the Great State and Republic of Texas are fortunate to have you as their governor.

Texas Governor’s letter to Biden

November 16, 2022

The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Biden:

The U.S. Constitution won ratification by promising the States, in Article IV, § 4, that the federal government “shall protect each of them against Invasion.” By refusing to enforce the immigration laws enacted by Congress, including 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1)’s criminal prohibition against aliens entering the United States between authorized ports of entry, your Administration has made clear that it will not honor that guarantee. The federal government’s failure has forced me to invoke Article I, § 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, thereby enabling the State of Texas to protect its own territory against invasion by the Mexican drug cartels.

Your inaction has led to catastrophic consequences. Under your watch, America is suffering the highest volume of illegal immigration in the history of our country. This past year, more than 2 million immigrants tried to enter the country illegally, coming from more than 100 countries across the globe. Worse yet, your failed border policies recently prompted a United Nations agency to declare that the border between the United States and Mexico is the deadliest land crossing in the world.

Texans are paying the price for your failure. Ranches are being ripped apart, and homes are vulnerable to intrusion. Our border communities are regularly disrupted by human traffickers and bailouts. Deadly fentanyl is crossing the porous border to such a degree that it is now the leading cause of death for citizens between the ages of 18 and 45.

By opening our border to this record-breaking level of illegal immigration, you and your Administration are in violation of Article IV, § 4 of the U.S. Constitution. Your sustained dereliction of duty compels Texas to invoke the powers reserved in Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which represents “an acknowledgement of the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders.” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 419 (2012) (Scalia, J., dissenting). Using that authority, Texas will escalate our efforts to repel and turn back any immigrant who seeks to enter our State at a border crossing that Congress has designated as illegal; to return to the border those who do cross illegally; and to arrest criminals who violate Texas law.

Know this: Article I, § 10, Clause 3 is not just excess verbiage. It reflects an understanding by our Founders, the authors of the Constitution, that some future President might abandon his obligation to safeguard the States from an extraordinary inflow of people who have no legal right of entry.

They foresaw your failures. In the more than 240 years of our great nation, no Administration has done more than yours to place the States in “imminent Danger”—a direct result of your policy decisions and refusal to deliver on the Article IV, § 4 guarantee. In the absence of action by your Administration to secure the border, every act by Texas officials is taken pursuant to the authority that the Founders recognized in Article I, § 10, Clause 3.

All of this can be avoided, of course, if you will simply enforce the laws that are already on the books. Your Administration must end its catch-and-release policies, repel this unprecedented mass migration, and satisfy its constitutional obligation through faithful execution of the immigration laws enacted by Congress:

  • You should aggressively prosecute the federal crimes of illegal entry and illegal reentry.
    See 8 U.S.C. § 1325, § 1326.
  • You should comply with statutes mandating that various categories of aliens “shall” be detained. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) & (iii)(IV) (aliens claiming asylum); id. § 1225(b)(2)(A) (aliens applying for admission); id. § 1226(c)(1) (criminal aliens); id. § 1231(a)(2) (aliens ordered removed); id. § 1222(a) (aliens who may carry disease).
  •  You should stop paroling aliens en masse in violation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which decrees that aliens applying for admission can be paroled into the United States “only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A).
  •  You should fully reinstate the Migrant Protection Protocols, such that aliens seeking admission remain in Mexico while proceedings unfold in the United States. See 8 U.S.C.
    § 1225(b)(2)(C).
  • You should immediately resume construction of the border wall in Texas, using the billions of dollars Congress has appropriated for that purpose. See FY2021 DHS Appropriations Act § 210, Pub. L. 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, 1456–57 (Dec. 27, 2020); FY2020 DHS Appropriations Act § 209, Pub. L. 116-93, 133 Stat. 2317, 2511–12 (Dec. 20, 2019).

Americans want an orderly immigration process that adheres to the laws enacted by the legislators they sent to Washington. In the words of Judge Oldham, however, you have “supplant[ed] the rule of law with the rule of say-so” while “tell[ing] Congress to pound sand.” Texas v. Biden, 20 F.4th 928, 982, 1004 (5th Cir. 2021); cf. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 4 (empowering Congress “[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”).

Before you took office, the United States enjoyed some of the lowest illegal-immigration figures it had seen in decades. Your Administration gutted the policies that yielded those low numbers. You must reinstate the policies that you eliminated, or craft and implement new policies, in order to fulfill your constitutional duty to enforce federal immigration laws and protect the States against invasion.

Your silence in the face of our repeated pleas is deafening. Your refusal to even visit the border for a firsthand look at the chaos you have caused is damning. Two years of inaction on your part now leave Texas with no choice but to escalate our efforts to secure our State. Your open-border policies, which have catalyzed an unprecedented crisis of illegal immigration, are the sole cause of Texas having to invoke our constitutional authority to defend ourselves.


Greg Abbott
Governor of Texas

cc: The Honorable Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General
The Honorable Alejandro Mayorkas, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security

©Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D. All rights reserved.

CIA Director’s Former Think Tank Introduced Congressional Staffers To Experts Who Worked For Chinese Spy Fronts

  • The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace introduced congressional staffers to at least 10 individuals who worked for Chinese intelligence front groups during a 2019 sponsored trip to China while current CIA Director William Burns was the nonprofit’s president, the Daily Caller News Foundation determined after reviewing author Alex Joske’s book, “Spies and Lies.”
  • Since at least the 1980s, Chinese spies have impersonated scholars aiming to influence U.S. nonprofits and policymakers, Joske found.
  • “A lot of the key scholars and other figures involved in U.S.-China relations on the Chinese side have these sorts of relationships,” Joske told the DCNF.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace introduced congressional staffers to at least 10 individuals who worked for Chinese intelligence front groups during a 2019 trip to China while current CIA Director William Burns served as the nonprofit’s president, a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation found.

During the week-long, all-expenses-paid trip to Beijing, a bipartisan group of congressional staffers from the offices of various representatives — including Connecticut Democratic Rep. Jim Himes and former North Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Meadows — met with Chinese government officials, journalists, academics and policy experts, according to the trip’s itinerary. Yet, at least 10 of the Chinese individuals worked for front groups controlled by Chinese spy agencies, such as the Ministry of State Security (MSS), the International Liaison Department (ILD) and the intel arm of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the DCNF determined.

The congressional staffers participated in a number of discussions with undisclosed Chinese intelligence front group members, such as a Nov. 6 “pre-dinner dialogue” concerning “Chinese perspectives on U.S.-China policy challenges,” which included Ding Yifan, a member of the MSS-controlled Institute of World Development Studies.

PLA’s Second Intelligence Department carries out military intelligence operations, while the ILD focuses on political intelligence and the MSS serves as China’s equivalent of the CIA, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The DCNF was able to identify some of the individuals who participated in Carnegie’s 2019 trip as being tied to Chinese intelligence agency front groups by cross-referencing the itinerary with the research of several prominent Chinese intelligence specialists, including former CIA analyst Peter Mattis and Alex Joske, a former analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

Joske’s new book, “Spies and Lies,” details how, since the 1980s, Chinese intelligence operatives co-opted or established various nonprofits and impersonated scholars with the goal of luring prominent Western think tanks, such as Carnegie, into partnerships in order to influence U.S. government policies towards the communist nation.

Carnegie’s cooperation with Chinese intelligence front groups dates back to at least 2004, when, under the leadership of former think tank president Jessica Mathews, the nonprofit launched a joint program with the MSS-controlled China Reform Forumaccording to Joske’s research. More than a decade later, Carnegie co-hosted the 2019 congressional staffer trip, which occurred while current CIA Director William Burns served as the think tank’s president.

“A lot of the key scholars and other figures involved in U.S.-China relations on the Chinese side have these sorts of relationships,” Joske told the DCNF.

The six day trip, which was co-hosted by Carnegie and the Aspen Institute, became a flashpoint during Burns’ 2021 confirmation hearings. Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio pressed Burns about Carnegie’s ties to a Chinese government-backed group as well as the all-expenses-paid trip that brought 11 congressional staffers to Beijing in 2019.

Burns told Rubio the trip was meant “to provide congressional staff members with an opportunity to engage directly with Chinese counterparts and to express their concerns about Chinese actions and malign behavior quite directly.”

However, the DCNF previously reported congressional staffers were also introduced to the president of a CCP-affiliated front group called the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries (CPAFFC). In 2020, the U.S. State Department designated CPAFFC as a foreign mission seeking to “malignly” influence American leaders.

Additionally, the DCNF has identified at least 10 individuals listed on the trip’s itinerary who worked for nonprofits controlled by Chinese intelligence agencies. At least three of these individuals were simultaneously working for Chinese intelligence front groups while employed by Carnegie, the DCNF found. Another two Carnegie policy experts who participated in the trip formerly worked for Chinese intelligence fronts.

During the trip, congressional staffers visited Carnegie’s center at Tsinghua University, where they encountered at least three experts who’d worked for intelligence front groups, the DCNF determined.

One of these experts who participated in the visit was Li Bin, a Carnegie nuclear policy fellow, who spoke to congressional staffers about North Korea’s “nuclear threat.” Li Bin is a member of the CCP and a PLA intelligence front group, the China Foundation for International and Strategic Studies (CFISS), according to the group’s website.

A second individual, Cheng Xiaohe, who Carnegie employed as an international relations expert, had previously worked for the MSS front group, the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), by Carnegie’s own admission.

The third individual, Yang Wenjing, worked as the chief of U.S. policy at CICIR. While Carnegie did not employ Yang Wejing, Carnegie had featured her as a speaker during events in 2017 and 2018 and continued to feature her at events afterwards.

Similarly, at another point during the trip, Carnegie introduced staffers to Carnegie-Tsinghua advisory council member, Wang Jisi, who is also a CCP member, for a “roundtable discussion.”

Wang has a “very close relationship with the Ministry of State Security,” Joske told the DCNF. Wang has since 2000 also served as director of the China Reform Forum, which Joske’s book identifies as an MSS-controlled front group.

Wang has also worked for at least four other intelligence fronts, including the China International Cultural Exchange Center (CICEC) and another MSS front called the China Institute of Strategy and Management (CISM), the DCNF found.

Carnegie, Burns, Wang and the CIA did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

With Republicans preparing to take control of the House, lawmakers are once again scrutinizing Burns’ time at Carnegie and the group’s deep and enduring relationships with Chinese academics, policy experts and government officials.

“The amount of CCP infiltration at Carnegie shows that Director Burns was aware and intentionally concealed it from the American people, or he was grossly incompetent,” Texas Republican Rep. Lance Gooden told the DCNF in September. “Anyone who enables our top adversary is not fit to lead a U.S. intelligence agency.”



Daily Caller News Foundation investigative reporter, political journalist, and China watcher. Twitter: @LenczyckiPhilip


EXCLUSIVE: CIA Director’s Former Think Tank Hired Experts From Nonprofits Controlled By Chinese Spy Agencies

EXCLUSIVE: Pentagon Funded Former Chinese Government Employee, CCP Member’s Nuclear Warfare Research

VIDEO EXPOSE: Apple Computers Block All P2P Communications for the Chinese Government

Welcome to The Red House

2021 was one of the worst years ever for religious freedom in China

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

VIDEO OF THE REVOLUTION: China Has Erupted–Sinoruption!

On October 1, 1949, Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong declared the creation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

On October 1, 2022, 73 years later, we may we witnessing a second revolution that could lead to a China Republic of the People (CRP).

Watch this videos:

China Has Erupted – REVOLUTION! by The China Show

Chinese Shop Keeper Breaks Out of Commie Quarantine with Soup Ladle

©The China Show. All rights reserved.


Are The Anti-Lockdown Protests Rocking China A Threat To Xi’s Rule?

GOP Lawmakers Call For ‘Investigation’ Into Chinese Firm’s Potential Stake In Key Nevada Lithium Mine


China: Covid protests explode as demonstrators demand Xi Jinping step down — a revolution or hiccup?


Afghanistan: Taliban flogs people in soccer stadium for ‘adultery, robbery and gay sex’

Sharia, we are constantly told in the West, is completely benign and compatible with Western secular values. Who has Sharia wrong? Non-Muslim Western secular analysts? Or the Taliban?

More on this story.

The Taliban Is Flogging People In Football Stadiums For ‘Adultery and Gay Sex

by Mohammed Rasool, Vice, November 24, 2022 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

The Taliban has brought back public floggings for what the group says are “moral crimes,” with people lashed in football stadiums after being convicted by the judges of the Islamist group.

A group of 14 people, including three women, were lashed in a football stadium in front of a crowd on Wednesday in the eastern Logar province. A Taliban official told the BBC that they were being punished for sins “including adultery, robbery, and gay sex.”

The group’s “Supreme Court” confirmed the conviction of “14 people, including three women, who were lashed, and attended by scholars, authorities, and people” in a statement on Twitter.

It’s believed to be the second round of lashings this month, after reports that 19 people were flogged in a similar way in the northern Takhar province.

The wave of public punishments comes a week after the Taliban announced that it will be “implementing Sharia Law” in full force across the country. Scenes such as the flogging resemble the group’s previous stint in power in the late 90s, which featured public executions, stoning, and other forms of corporal punishments….

The Islamist group’s version of the justice system is a mixed bag of Islamic laws and the centuries-old arbitration customs of Afghanistan. To justify banning girls from attending high school, the Islamists cited “cultural” values, as it disagrees with many Islamic scholars’ take on the issue….



Nigeria: Muslims raid community, murder two people, ‘People are moving out of the community as a result of fear’

India: Muslim rapes Hindu girl at gunpoint while his sisters record the act, blackmails her to convert to Islam

Islamic Republic of Pakistan: 200 Christians left homeless after authorities bulldoze their homes without warning

London’s Sadiq Khan: ‘We desperately need new regulation of social media and online speech’

Palestinian Authority urges youth to seek ‘martyrdom-death,’ which it presents as a ‘wedding of martyrs’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Communist China Fracturing & The Chinese People Rising

“If you do not dismantle the CCP they will come to you, sooner or later.” — Allen Zeng.

Allen Zeng has set up radio stations beaming real news into Communist China reaching many millions. Please visit Sound of Hope.

The below video documents the beginning of fracture in the brutal Chi-Com tyranny.

The bloody CCP is already here Dear Friends.

They form one arm of a pincer movement upon the American Republic.

The other of course, being those who taught the Chinese Communists these unmannerly, godless behaviors – namely the British Crown’s Privy Council at behest of their Anglo-Banker Mammon Masters, the Rothschilds & their minions.

Click here to view the list of those who are now consorting with the CCP, forming the British-Chinese Horde.

Together they would not suffer. The American People to have two consecutive US Presidential terms of office, in The People’s broader return to traditional American values.

Repudiate the CCP & the Bankers in all things, everywhere you find them.

And pray unceasingly for God’s grace in America’s broader revival of humble worship of the Father.

©P. Brooks



Major riots and protests in Belgium, The Netherlands and CHINA

LIVE FEED: Chinese protests and military response to insane COVID rules

Techno-Authoritarianism Is Here to Stay: China and the Deep State Have Joined Forces



LTC Theresa Long, USA, MD has documented such grotesquely aberrant disease outcomes, from forced administration of the deadly injections in the US Army Aviation population – a notably healthy group – as to be Prima Facie Evidence of a Major Criminal Conspiracy implicating US Army & DoD leadership, injection manufacturers, federal regulators, Congress, importuning members of the Faux Biden administration, the media and more.

Her thirty minute recitation is compelling & comprehensive.

Army Whistleblower Lt Col Theresa Long MD (flight surgeon) gives an impressive testimony of how the DoD, FDA and many other organizations are violating federal code and how the jabs are causing vaccine injuries to fighter pilots as well as how their medical records are being falsified to cover up jab injuries; injuries from brain tumors, cancer, and deadly heart conditions. She shows how the jabs are injuring and grounding many young military pilots. Find out the dangers they are facing.

Lt Col Theresa Long MD gave her whistleblower testimony on September 17th, 2022 to the Alaska Medical Freedom Symposium in Palmer, Alaska. Hundreds were in in attendance with many more watching live online across the state and throughout the US and Canada.

She has many choice words, such as:

Stop and think about it. The strategic compromise of our National Defense, that has occurred by surrendering unlimited power to a for-profit corporation, like the pharmaceutical corporation and regulatory agencies, like the NIH, ADA, CDC, FDA.

Members of Congress and the Senate must immediately demand the DoD present their investigation and summary findings of all VAERS reports on service members.

The impact of relentless coercion, intimidation, threats, abuse of authority, blatant disregard for bodily autonomy and religious freedom has directly resulted in devastation to medical readiness in the form of failed recruiting, retention, mass-resignations, forced separation of personnel that hold critical military occupational specialties, in addition to the attrition in the vaxxine-induced injury.

Despite the totality of this devastation to our force, senior officials at the highest level will not pivot from this self-inflicted castration of our national defense.


Of course, I have a heart for Alaska. I am an aerospace medicine doctor and aviation is the lifeline for hundreds of thousands of Alaskans and perhaps the only true way to appreciate the magnitude of Alaska’s beauty.

I served in the enlisted and officer ranks in the US Army since 1991. The Army as trained me as an expert in aerospace and occupational medicine. My testimony here today is based on my firsthand medical training, my background n public health, epidemiology research and as a flight surgeon.

Senator, I have grave concerns about the health and safety of our service men and women. Today, I’m going to cover six areas regarding how the vaccine mandate has impacted the health and safety of our servicemen, degrading our national security.

My firsthand experience: Back in September 2021, when I submitted an affidavit in the Robert v. Austin case, in which I outlined how the DoD was violating its own risk management process in their push to mandate the vaccination of every member of the armed forces with an experimental vaccine.

After my testimony was made public, the DoD made no effort to investigate my safety concerns. On November 4, 2021, I was called to testify before the permanent ranking member of the subcommittee on investigations, Senator Ron Johnson.

In that testimony, I reported that in one day, I had to ground three out of three pilots for vaxxine injuries. One of those pilots, I spoke of was a college athlete. prior to being selected for flight training. Just prior to completing his training as an Apache pilot, I saw him for chest pain after vaccination.

I subsequently diagnosed him with myocarditis or inflammation of the heart that left him with permanent scarring of the muscle so significant that it increased his risk of sudden cardiac death at the age of 24.

I filed a VAERS report on him, like have many other vaccine-injured pilots. The cardiac damage was not compatible with continued flight status, nor was it compatible with continued military service.

Months after the soldier left Fort Rucker, I called him to check on him. I reviewed his medical records, only to discover that his immunization record had been altered to make it look as though he had been vaccinated after he developed myocarditis.

A review of records stared to reveal a pattern of alterations in vaccine records, several of which were pre-submitted VAERS reports.

Falsification of medical records is a crime.

These men and women; they are your sons and daughters. They are the best of us.

Evidence of harm: In 2021, after reviewing cases of two service members with pituitary tumors, our search for answers to determine if there was a pathio-physiologic basis that this new messenger RNA technology could cause brain tumors, I engaged the C19 group.

This was a group of over 450 doctors, scientists, mathematicians and Nobel laureates from around the world who were looking at early outpatient treatment options for SARS-CoV-2 and vaccine safety.

The answer to my question came right from research from Pfizer, that demonstrated that the spike protein is the pathogenic portion of the coronavirus, meaning it causes blood vessel dysfunction, leading to micro-clots and it also suppresses the tumor-suppressor gene that prevents cancer.

Then, experts pointed me to Pfizer’s own biodistribution study. The biodistribution study tells you where in the body the drug goes and how much of it concentrates in each organ.

I reviewed Pfizer’s biodistribution study that proved not only that the messenger RNA COVID vaccine did not say locally in the muscle after injection, as we were told, but in fact, concentrated in the pituitary of the brain, the spinal cord, lung, liver, adrenal glands, ovaries, uterus, thyroid, bone marrow, heart, eyes.

If you look at the biodistribution study, you can see that over time, the concentration of the messenger RNA and the lipid nanoparticle increased in these critical areas.

So now, we have indisputable evidence of where the vaccine could go and what it could do once it got there. The answer was yes, the messenger RNA, wrapped in a lipid nanoparticle delivery system crosses the blood-brain barrier and concentrates in the pituitary and spinal cord.

When I raised my concerns to the Director of the Defense Health Agency and forwarded her a copy of Pfizer’s biodistribution study, the response was, “It made no sense”.

In light of what we now know about the DoD’s collaboration with Pfizer to conduct a Phase III clinical research trial on DoD personnel, it is concerning that the very person who oversaw immunizations for the whole Defense Health Agency didn’t recognize Pfizer’s biodistribution study, nor the significance of the messenger RNA crossing the blood-brain barrier.

Here’s the second part and note the concentration in the ovaries is at almost 12 times more than anywhere else.

The Defense Medical Epidemiology Database: In the absence of transparency in a functioning medical surveillance system, I believe the information and expertise I gained from having access to the uncensored C19 group, my firsthand experience monitoring the heath of my brigade and the data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database uniquely have equipped me with valuable insight into the emerging deleterious effects of the COVID vaccine on aviation safety.

As a brigade surgeon, I’m required to review the health of roughly 4,000 young, 20 to 30-year-old pilots, air crew members and soldiers every month. I have to give an accounting to the Commander on any pilot or air crew member whose medical condition prevents them from participating in flight training.

Biostatistical analysis of the past three years of these monthly health reviews shows alarming trends that started only after the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccination. These trends are more obvious because the population is specifically selected for aviation duties based on their superior level of health and fitness.

In 15 years of taking care of soldiers, I have never seen the litany of debilitating and potentially deadly medical conditions that included strokes, transient-ischemic attacks, pericarditis, myocarditis, rapid-onset and progression of various cancers, to include testicular cancer, esophageal cancer, brain tumors, endocrine tumors, thyroid dysfunction, multiple sclerosis, cognitive impairment, persistent severe insomnia, suppression of the immune system, unprovoked clots in the splenic and portal vein, liver dysfunction, menstrual irregularities and miscarriages.

This cluster of medical conditions represented a dramatic shift in the acuity of medical conditions normally seen in this population.

When I reached to the Army Public Health Command and numerous senior medical leaders about my safety concerns, I was ignored. Threats against my career were made but no appropriate actions were taken to fully investigate the number and scope of adverse medical events after the vaccination.

The DMED Database is a database in which military professionals can perform queries to determine medical trends among active duty personnel, using International Codes of Disease, ICD codes.

An ICD code corresponds to specific diseases, injuries or illness. Since the DoD uses one electronic medical records system, worldwide, the DMED is arguably one of the most accurate epidemiology databases in the United States.

For example, I could query how many times healthcare providers across the DoD had diagnosed an active duty service member with ICD I26, pulmonary embolism going all the way back to 1991. As you can see, these are cases of diagnoses of pulmonary embolisms that healthcare providers across the military have made, across the DoD in years 2016 through 2021.

I was unable to get transparency from senior medical leaders on vaccine adverse events, so I began looking at ICD in the DMED that corresponded to what medical conditions I was seeing in my population. The pathio-physiologic basis for these medical conditions was, again supported by Pfizer’s biodistribution study and further validated by their cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse events.

Is it a coincidence that the unusual medical conditions I was seeing in my soldiers were the very medical conditions Pfizer and the FDA had seen during clinical trials?

Pfizer’s report detailed 1,291 significant and debilitating adverse events after vaxxination seen during the clinical trials. Here are some more of the DMED findings. You heard Rosie talk about her thyroid autoimmune disorder, pregnancy with abortive outcome, congenital malformations of babies, cancer of the breast.

When you dig the DMED data and you overlay the VAERS reports on service members, you see that the curves correlate perfectly.

Here is two out of the nine pages outlined in the 1,291 adverse events. All the conditions in blue are incompatible with safety of flight. All of the highlighted conditions in yellow are conditions I have personally seen.

In the FDA’s October 22, 2020 presentation regarding safety surveillance of COVID-19 vaccines proves the FDA was aware these vaccines were dangerous and deadly.

This list of devastating cardiovascular, neurologic, autoimmune, pregnancy and reproductive complications should have been unacceptable, not only in Army aviation but also for military leaders across the DoD. Physicians across the country and regulatory agencies across the USA.

After finding catastrophic DMED data, I had doctors, Sam Sigiloff and Lt Col Pete Chambers independently verify the data.

Within hours of the DMED data being presented to Senator Johnson, Moderna lost $140 billion in stock. When the DMED data was presented to the Aviation Center of Excellence Command General, Major General Francis and he demanded an explanation for the data from the Defense Health Agency, the DHA took 47 days to formulate a response to the data, with devastating National Security implications.

47 days to explain data and how was this data a surprise to the very people responsible for monitoring it.

The fact that the DHA had to be alerted to the data by me is at best an indictment of gross medical negligence and dereliction of duty in the medical surveillance of our force during the Superbowl of Pandemics and at worst, an intentional act of medical treason.

How could any military leader view the following data outlined from our own medical database and continue to order service members to take an experimental drug. At the very least, leaders should have reflexively stopped all vaccinations until a full investigation was completed.

These questions demand investigations and answers. The intentional harm of US Citizens and service members is unacceptable.

I requested and received a report from the CDC on the number and type of vaccine adverse events made on service members. There are 9,953 reports, 10% of which are deadly, debilitating or required hospitalization. There were 119 deaths after vaxxination of our service member men and women in one year, when there was 93 deaths of service members from all branches and components across the DoD attributed to the COVID infection in two years.

Over the last two years, military medical professionals have received numerous emails on a daily or weekly basis regarding everything COVID. What was missing was equal vigilance and fervor for risk communication on adverse medical events and complications after COVID vaccines were mandated.

The CARES Act financially incentivized everything COVID except vaccine safety reporting. Medical professionals are required by law to file VAERS reports for monitoring vaccine safety that result in billions of dollars of profit for Big Pharma. But why, when our regulatory agencies are ignoring these safety signals?

Recently, the CDC Director admitted that the agency gave false information on COVID-19 safety monitoring. The very agencies Americans trusted to monitor the safety of this experimental vaccine admitted to being sound asleep at the wheel, while whistleblower doctors across the country dared to raise concerns were demonized, censored, silenced, reprimanded and retaliated against.

But what about the DoD? Surely, professionals tasked with the health surveillance of out fighting force would be vigilant in monitoring signals of harm from this drug. Unlike VAERS reports made by civilians, VAERS reports on service members were easily verified using the single electronic medical records system the DoD uses. VAERS reports on service members represented the single most accurate and verifiable accounts of post-vaccination injury in the United States.

Yet, to date, military medical professionals across the DoD have never received any communication to indicate any such active medical surveillance has taken place. In fact, I am concerned that executives at Pfizer pharmaceuticals have superior transparency on the number, frequency and severity of these post-vaccination events than military personnel, who have a non-financial, fiduciary duty to the health of our force.

Stop and think about it. The strategic compromise of our National Defense, that has occurred by surrendering unlimited power to a for-profit corporation, like the pharmaceutical corporation and regulatory agencies, like the NIH, ADA, CDC, FDA.

Members of Congress and the Senate must immediately demand the DoD present their investigation and summary findings of all VAERS reports on service members.

©LTC Theresa Long, USA, MD. All rights reserved

RELATED ARTICLE: Highly Decorated US Military Officer Resigns and Sacrifices Pension in Protest to Vaccine Mandate

Khamenei chants ‘Death to America,’ mocks Biden as ‘poor, demented’ man

Meanwhile, Biden’s handlers still hope to revive their catastrophic appeasement package known as the Iran nuclear deal.

Iranian Supreme Leader Mocks Biden As Demented As Nuclear Deal Negotiations Stall

by Alana Goodman, Washington Free Beacon, November 23, 2022:

Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei mocked President Joe Biden as a “poor, demented” man and led a crowd in chants of “death to America” during a speech on state television on Saturday.

Biden turned 80 on Sunday, and his age and declining mental sharpness have been a matter of public speculation since his election in 2020.

Khamenei’s comments come as the Biden administration said this week it is still interested in reaching a nuclear deal with Iran, despite a reported stalemate in the negotiations and the Iranian government’s ongoing violent crackdown on nationwide anti-government protests.

In Khamenei’s speech, which was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, the Iranian leader claimed that the Islamic Republic’s “advancement” was “intolerable and unbearable for the West.” He criticized U.S. presidents since the 1979 Iranian revolution, singling out Donald Trump as a “dope” and Biden as “demented.”

“America is at the forefront of this campaign by the enemy,” said Khamenei. “All the American presidents, in the decades that have passed since the revolution, have fought the Islamic Republic on that front.”

“Some of them have dropped dead, and some have been cast in the garbage bin of history, even if still alive,” said Khamenei. “This includes the previous dope [Trump] and this poor, demented incumbent guy [Biden].”

At one point in the speech, the crowd launched into a chant of “death to America.”

The Biden administration still has hope that it can reach a nuclear deal with Iran, despite concerns from members of Biden’s own party that the agreement wouldn’t hinder Iran’s nuclear ambitions and would end up sending more funding to the terrorist-financing regime.

U.S. ambassador to Israel Tom Nides this week said a nuclear deal with Iran is “not off the table,” although the Biden administration is “nowhere close” to reaching an agreement with the regime.

“Nothing’s ever off the table,” said Nides. He added that Iran has been an unwilling partner and he was “not holding my breath for any negotiation with the Iranians in this current form.”…



UK: Charges dropped against ‘Palestinian’ Muslims who screamed ‘F**k the Jews, rape their daughters’

France: Muslim migrant vandalizes memorial to the victims of the 2015 jihad massacre at the Bataclan in Paris

The New York Times Keeps Failing to Vet Its Middle Eastern Hires

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

“MX. Aldrich”: Suspect in Colorado Gay Club Shooting is Non-Binary, Demands They/Them Pronouns

The hell the left wrought.

The Colorado shooter informed the authorities he is non-binary, uses they/them pronouns, and requested to be referred to as Mx. Aldrich throughout the proceedings

CNN is speechless.

CNN Panel in State of Confusion after Club Q Killer’s Lawyers Say He’s ‘Non-Binary’

Colorado gay club shooting suspect identifies as non-binary, lawyers say

Court papers revealed public defenders referred to the suspect as Mx Aldrich, after they legally changed their name back in 2016.

By Lauren Russell, Sky News, 23 November 2022:

The defence team of a suspect facing possible hate crime charges over the fatal shooting of five people at a gay club in Colorado have said they define as non-binary.

Court papers filed on behalf of Anderson Lee Aldrich, 22, showed public defenders referring to the suspect as Mx Aldrich, noting that they are non-binary and use they/them pronouns.

Aldrich was taken into custody and treated for injuries after five people were killed and at least 25 others injured at Club Q, an “adult-oriented gay and lesbian nightclub” in Colorado Springs, on the night of 19 November. The suspect was beaten into submission by patrons at the nightclub.

They were scheduled to appear in court via video link from El Paso County jail for the first time on Wednesday.

At a news conference, officers said that a “long rifle” was used and shooting began as soon as the suspect entered the venue. The motive is still under investigation, but Aldrich faces possible murder and hate crime charges, according to authorities.

Charges are currently preliminary and prosecutors have not yet filed formal charges. Hate crime charges require proving that the suspect was motivated by bias against the victims’ actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.



Colorado Shooter Identifies As Non-Binary, Uses They/Them Pronouns: Court Documents

Two Years Later, CBS ‘confirms’ Hunter Biden laptop is real 769 days after Post broke story

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Kevin McCarthy Threatens Biden’s DHS Secretary With Impeachment If He Doesn’t Resign

House Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy threatened President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas with impeachment Tuesday during a visit to the border in El Paso, Texas.

McCarthy, who is vying for the House speakership, said Republicans will push for Mayorkas’ impeachment if he refuses to step down. He was joined by several Republican colleagues, including Texas Rep. Tony Gonzales, who represents a southern border district, that made the trip to show support for Border Patrol.

“His actions have produced the greatest wave of illegal immigration in recorded history. Our country may never recover from Secretary Mayorkas’ dereliction of duty. This is why today I am calling on the secretary to resign. He cannot and must not remain in that position,” McCarthy said.

“If Secretary Mayorkas does not resign, House Republicans will investigate every order, every action and every failure to determine whether we can begin an impeachment inquiry,” McCarthy said.

The Republican Study Committee was previously pushing for Mayorkas’ impeachment, but McCarthy argued that he “wants to make the case before we go for the jugular,” Axios reported in April.

Under Mayorkas’ leadership, federal border authorities have been overwhelmed by a surge in illegal immigration. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encountered a record of over 2.3 million migrants in fiscal year 2022 and more than 230,000 at the start of fiscal year 2023.

Mayorkas, however, continues to insist that the southern border is “secure.” He most recently made the assertion during a House Homeland Security Committee on Nov. 15.

For months, Republican lawmakers have called on Mayorkas to resign for making the false claim.

“I’m not unhappy. I’m pissed. Secretary Mayorkas needs to resign: he’s incompetent,” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham told Martha MacCallum, host of Fox News’ “The Story,” in September, adding “The border is not closed. It’s been surrendered.”

“Secretary Mayorkas is proud to advance the noble mission of this Department, support its extraordinary workforce, and serve the American people. The Department will continue our work to enforce our laws and secure our border, while building a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system,” DHS said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Members of Congress can do better than point the finger at someone else; they should come to the table and work on solutions for our broken system and outdated laws, which have not been overhauled in over 40 years,” the department added.



Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Even Worse’: Illegal Migrants Will Flood The US Border When One Major Trump-Era Policy Ends

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

‘They Created An Industry’: How Leftists Gaslight Americans On Extremism

Democrats’ final pitch to Americans this November as the midterms approached couldn’t have been more clear: Republicans are “extremists” hellbent on destroying Democracy.

Joe Biden infamously declared that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic” at a September speech in Philadelphia. But 50 million Americans voted for Donald Trump in 2016 — 50 million Americans who, according to their president, are fringe “extremists.”

Interest in the word “extremism” is vastly more pronounced in Washington D.C. than in any state over the last year, according to Google Trends. On a scale of 0-100, DC stands at 100, with Vermont, Virginia and Maryland following at 22, 20 and 16, respectively. Swing states such as Ohio, Indiana and New Jersey have a relative interest in the word of 8, 7 and 8, respectively. In short, obsession with the problem of extremism is mainly a passion project of the D.C. elite.

Following the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center, Democrat lined up to support Roe v. Wade, and even enshrine it into law. Biden promised to codify Roe if Democrats took majorities in the midterms, and Vice President Kamala Harris lamented the potential overturning of Roe back in May.

But Roe v. Wade allowed abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy, well into the second trimester, and most Americans support restrictions on abortion after the first trimester, which ends at 12 weeks. In fact, the Mississippi abortion law that sparked the Dobbs decision would not ban abortions until the 15th week of pregnancy.

Progressive Rep. Pramila Jayapal called a Florida bill that bans explicit discussions of sex and gender in classrooms “extremist.” Jayapal is one of many Democrats who inaccurately dubbed this legislation the “Don’t Say Gay Bill,” although it nowhere prohibits individuals from saying the word “gay.” Despite Democrat claims of extremism, a majority of registered voters supported the legislation, and only 35% opposed it. Opposition to transgender surgery for children has also been dubbed “extremist” by LGBT activists, but a recent poll from McLaughlin and Associates finds that 65% of Americans think the transgender movement has gone too far in recommending such procedures to minors.

Brian Levin, who directs the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, told the Daily Caller that extremism can be defined as “a position that is … antithetical to our constitution and the processes of our democracies, particularly with regard to bigotry and discrimination,” but admitted that the word is often thrown around too lightly.

“Sometimes we label people extremist because we’re too lazy to debate them, but other times people are labeled extremists because they are,” Levin told the Caller, adding that political problems arise, “when we have people running for various types of critical office who are election deniers.”

Kyle Shideler, the director and senior analyst for homeland security and counterterrorism at the Center for Security Policy, said the term “extremist” is problematic from the start.

“I think we should discard the term altogether. If we need to talk about ideologies that potentially lead to violence, we need to talk about those ideologies on their own terms. So if we have concerns about Neo-Nazi groups, we should talk about neo-Nazism,” Shideler told the Caller. “Same thing if we’re concerned about anarchists like Antifa. You don’t need a blanket term to do it. We should identify groups and ideologies on their own terms.”

In June 2021, the Biden White House released a National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, which claimed that domestic terrorism comes from “racial or ethnically motivated violent extremists and networks whose racial, ethnic, or religious hatred leads them toward violence, as well as those whom they encourage to take violent action.”

The document not only decries “explicit” calls for violence against religious and ethnic minorities, but also words that are “less explicit, lurking in ideologies.” Chief among these ideologies are, according to the document, “conspiracy theories and other forms of disinformation and misinformation.”

Shideler told the Caller that the government’s use of the term “extremism” blurs the line between speech that calls for violence and constitutionally protected speech, causing the government to censor speech which they claim is so extreme that it leads to violence.

“It’s a sort of bait and switch that’s been perpetuated, because they will use the term extremist and say not everyone who is an extremist is a terrorist and they have first amendment rights … But then they will turn around and say ‘oh there’s a rise in extremism.’ And so they dance between whether they’re talking about people who are actually engaged in criminality or people who hold certain ideas,” he added.

As an example, in July 2021 then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the White House was working with Facebook to determine which posts on the platform should be flagged for “disinformation” on the COVID-19 vaccine.

“We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation,” Psaki said, noting that “Facebook has repeatedly shown that they have the levers to promote quality information.”

“[The left] created a terminology, and then they created an industry,” Shideler told the Caller, “and they staffed that industry with certain academics who held a particular viewpoint.”

Levin told the Caller that people who spread extremist ideologies online but don’t necessarily call for violence still contribute to a negative environment.

“Those individuals are at least part of the ecosystem of extremism even if they’re not the bullseye center of it,” Levin said.



Staff writer.


RELATED VIDEO: Bidens Finally to Be Investigated


Here’s All the Left Wing Political Violence The Corporate Media Seems to Have Forgotten About

‘They’re On The Run’: Hospitals Caught Providing Sex Change Treatments To Minors Seem To Follow The Same Playbook

Free Speech Organizations Silent After Medical Groups Ask Biden DOJ To Prosecute Conservative Journalists

Republican States Move To Keep Major Trump-Era Border Policy Amid Surge In Illegal Immigration

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Governments Are Using Drones to Spy on Americans. Here’s How People Are Fighting Back

Drone technology is making it easier than ever for governments to stick their nose where it doesn’t belong.

Americans have long been concerned about government surveillance, and rightly so. Being watched by the government is incredibly disconcerting, especially when government agents are probing into your private life.

The rise of drone technology has not helped on this front. Whereas before a government would need a plane or helicopter to get aerial views of you or your property, now they just need a small remote-controlled device.

The issue of governments spying on Americans using drones has come up in some recent court cases and legislative disputes. One recent case involves Todd and Heather Maxon who live on a rural five-acre property in Long Lake Township, Michigan. Todd likes to fix up cars, and he keeps a number of vehicles on his property.

For years the Township has been going after the couple for zoning violations, accusing them of illegally storing “junk” on their property. But here’s the kicker. The cars can’t even be seen from outside the property…that is, unless you fly a drone overhead. And that’s exactly what the Township did.

Without even attempting to get a warrant, the Township hired a contractor to fly a drone as low as 150 feet over the Maxons’ property multiple times over two years. The Township is now trying to use the pictures taken by the drone as evidence that the Maxons are violating a local zoning ordinance.

“If the government wants to conduct intrusive surveillance like this, the Fourth Amendment requires that it get a warrant,” said Institute for Justice Attorney Mike Greenberg regarding the case. “The zoning authority’s failure to even try to get one shows their indifference to Michiganders’ constitutional rights.”

New York City has also come in the crosshairs in recent years for its decisions on this front. In 2019, the New York Police Department acquired 14 drones for “monitoring giant crowds, investigating hazardous waste spills, handling hostage situations and reaching remote areas in crime scenes, among other tasks.” Though the NYPD insists the drones won’t be used for warrantless surveillance, many are worried that putting this technology in the hands of police is just asking for trouble.

Citing these fears, privacy advocates pushed for legislation known as the Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology Act (“POST Act”), which requires the NYPD to release information about how surveillance tools are being used and creates an annual oversight system to audit compliance with department policies. The Act was passed in June 2020 after gaining momentum following the death of George Floyd.

The legal issue with warrantless government surveillance revolves around the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states the following:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

In plain language, governments aren’t allowed to conduct searches and seizures as they please. They need to get a warrant.

In the more than two centuries that have passed since this amendment was adopted in 1791, mountains of case law have built up establishing precedents for what exactly constitutes “unreasonable” and what qualifies as a “search” or “seizure.” Other related questions have also been extensively litigated, such as whether evidence collected in an unconstitutional search (such as pictures from a warrantless drone flight) can be used in court. On that issue, there is a long-standing precedent. “For more than a century, the remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation has been suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence,” the Institute for Justice notes.

Whether the Maxons win their case remains to be seen.

What’s clear, however, is that drone technology provides governments with unprecedented spying capabilities—capabilities they would gladly use against Americans if they could get away with it.

For many topics addressed in the Bill of Rights libertarians are firmly in favor of the right being recognized (for example, freedom of speech and gun rights). With the Fourth Amendment, however, there are some philosophical problems.

The economist and political philosopher Walter Block addresses the “right” to privacy in the Peeping Tom chapter of his book Defending the Undefendable 2. “According to the libertarian legal code,” Block writes, “we may do anything at all to each other, whether they like it or not, provided, only, that in so doing we not violate—not their privacy ‘rights’ which do not exist, but rather—their property rights in their own persons and justly owned physical possessions.”

As Block correctly points out, spying on people isn’t technically a rights violation from a libertarian perspective. Indeed, a “right” to privacy, consistently recognized, would lead to all sorts of absurd laws, such as banning detectives or prohibiting most journalism and gossip.

Should we let governments spy on us at will, then, and never push back through legal channels? Of course not. There is a sound philosophical case to be made against government surveillance—it just doesn’t rest on a supposed “right” to privacy.

The most fundamental point to be made in this regard from a libertarian framework is that government surveillance is funded by taxpayer dollars, which are taken coercively. This alone makes the practice immoral in the libertarian view.

It’s also worth pointing out that the purpose of government surveillance isn’t necessarily protecting people. Sometimes the government uses drones because it intends to force its laws on people (such as in the case of the Maxons and Long Lake Township’s zoning laws) in which case the government is using surveillance as a means to a liberty-violating end.

In such cases, libertarians will often make a tactical move. While we may disagree with the Fourth Amendment philosophically, holding the State to its stated laws on privacy is often a more effective way of defending people’s liberties (property rights) than appealing to philosophical ideals. Just saying “it’s their property, they have a right to use it as they please” may be a more philosophically sound rebuttal to zoning laws, but it’s not particularly effective in court.

If appealing to the Fourth Amendment is what will convince the powers that be to respect property rights, there’s nothing wrong with that. We just need to recognize that, for libertarians, such an appeal is merely a practical tactic—the philosophical argument against the government’s actions is rather different from the legal argument.

So that’s the argument against government drones, but what about private drones? Would libertopia have private drones flying everywhere, snooping on people constantly, seeing as libertarians don’t recognize a right to privacy? Of course not. Privacy is in high demand, so drones would almost certainly be regulated with voluntary contracts.

Responding to the Fourth Amendment at the end of his Peeping Tom chapter, Block summarizes the libertarian position on privacy as follows: “We have no such right. It is merely a privilege, one that, fortunately, the free market system can bestow upon us.”


Patrick Carroll

Patrick Carroll has a degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo and is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.


EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Italy’s PM Giorgia Meloni, ‘The solution is to free Africa from certain Europeans who exploit it!’

Italy’s first female Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is taking on the issue of bringing migrants from Africa to Europe head on.

She appeared on the news with a startling revelation about the CFA franc.

According to the International Monetary Fund,

What is the CFA franc zone?

The CFA franc zone consists of 14 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, each affiliated with one of two monetary unions. Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte D’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo comprise the West African Economic and Monetary Union, or WAEMU, founded in 1994 to build on the foundation of the West African Monetary Union, founded in 1973. The remaining six countries — Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, and Gabon — comprise the Central African Economic and Monetary Union, or CAEMC.


In our September 26th, 2022 column Why They Already Hate Giorgia Meloni The New Prime Minister of Italy we wrote,

Here’s why these woke, anti-liberty, anti-family, anti-faith media outlets hate Giorgia Meloni.


They hate Prime Minister of Italy Giorgia Meloni because she is pro-woman, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-life, pro-Italy. Her message is “Make Italy Great Again” (MIGA) and very much like the American MAGA movement she is hated for her love of faith, family and country.

Prime Minister of Italy Giorgia Meloni is a woman of principle.

Now Giorgia is taking on the IMF and the French elites who use the Africans as slaves to enhance their wealth.

Giorgia is everything that the real fascists hate. She’s a mother, Catholic, wife and a strong independent woman who speaks truth to power.

She loves her country and its traditions.

In other words she is a normal and healthy woman!

Copyright Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Is Big Tech Censoring Child Trafficking?

It would seem that one of the most uniting causes in the world would be to protect children. Specifically: children who are being trafficked, exploited, and abused sexually, physically, mentally, and emotionally.

A recent increase in awareness about the prevalence of child trafficking has led to a concerning counter-movement by large, public platforms. There seems to be a concerted effort to squash the voices of organizations and individuals who are speaking out against child exploitation and sex trafficking.

If children are being trafficked in any significant quantities in our country, shouldn’t the public be made aware? Shouldn’t action be taken, policies changed, and justice served?

Or, what motive would there be to censor people who are raising awareness and demanding action?

Should Big Tech companies have the power to control what information or opinions citizens are allowed to speak about on public platforms?

Is this an intentional effort to suppress or censor this information from being shared with the public? Or are these large platforms simply guarding their users from misleading information?

Let’s discuss the facts.

What Is Child Sex Trafficking?

According to the United States Department of Justice:

“Child sex trafficking refers to the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a minor for the purpose of a commercial sex act.”

According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC):

“While any child can be targeted by a trafficker, research, data and survivor lived experience and expertise have revealed traffickers and buyers often target youth who lack strong support networks, have experienced violence in the past, are experiencing homelessness, or are marginalized by society.  Traffickers are masters of manipulation and prey upon vulnerabilities using psychological pressure and intimidation to control and sexually exploit the child for their benefit.

The issue of child sex trafficking is complex. Understanding the various forms of child sex trafficking and indicators can create opportunities for prevention, identification and response. Most importantly NCMEC embraces and encourages all efforts on this issue to be survivor-informed, child-centered, and trauma-informed.

Below are some examples of child sex trafficking:

 Pimp-Controlled Trafficking

Child is trafficked by an unrelated individual, male or female, who often develops an intentional relationship with the child which is later used as leverage in the exploitation.

 Familial Trafficking

Child is trafficked by a relative or a person who is perceived by the child to be a family member such as individuals referred to as “auntie” or “uncle” but are not directly related to the child.

 Gang-Controlled Trafficking

Child is trafficked by a member of a gang or trafficked by the gang.  Gangs leverage their organizational structure, violence, and local, national and international networks to instill fear and loyalty in the child victim.

 Buyer-Perpetrated Trafficking

Child is being trafficked but does not have an identified trafficker.  Instead, the buyer is directly exploiting the child’s vulnerabilities by offering money, food, and/or shelter in exchange for the sexual exploitation.

Child sex trafficking can have devastating immediate and long-term consequences, including health impacts, psychological and physical trauma and even death.”

How Many Children Are Trafficked Every Year in the USA?

No one knows the real numbers of trafficked children, because most of it is not reported.

Child trafficking can happen to any child, regardless of race, gender, education, citizenship, and socio-economic status. Most people think of child trafficking as children bound and beaten in hidden bunkers in 3rd world countries. While that is a reality for many children around the world, most people don’t realize that child trafficking is rampant in the USA and that the victims and perpetrators may be right in front of them.

The USA is one of the main destinations and sources of child trafficking.

It’s estimated that hundreds of thousands of children go missing in the USA every year.

Child Trafficking is estimated to be a $38-50 BILLION dollar a year criminal enterprise in the USA alone.

Why is Child Trafficking Censored on Social Media?

Despite surmounting evidence of child trafficking in all 50 states and every major city, large social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok seem to suppress, censor, and/or remove posts on the topic.

In 2020, hashtags such as #SaveTheChildren and #SaveOurChildren were banned or censored on most big social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok. This seemed to be in response to the influx of people who were made aware about the massive scale of child trafficking in America and the amount of posts, questions, and concerns that ensued.

While some theories about certain public figures being involved with child trafficking have yet to be proven, the evidence and prevalence of child trafficking in the USA are undeniable.

The viral impact of these awareness campaigns arms the public with the information they need to safeguard children and help prevent this gruesome crime from thriving in their communities. It even resulted in hundreds of organized rallies and marches all over the USA, from Washington, to Tennessee, to Michigan to California. Increased public awareness also funds the nonprofit organizations who are taking action to protect and rescue children.

Why would anyone want to sabotage efforts to raise awareness about child trafficking?

As of the writing of this article, the following hashtags are censored – meaning, banned – on Instagram.

  1. #ChildTraffickingAwareness
  2. #ChildTrafficking
  3. #ChildSexTrafficking
  4. #EndChildTrafficking
  5. #ProtectChildren
  6. #ProtectOurChildren
  7. #ProtectTheChildren
  8. #SaveChildren
  9. #SaveOurChildren
  10. #SaveOurChildrenFromPedophiles
  11. #SaveTheChildren
  12. #StopChildTrafficking
  13. #StopChildAbuse

What’s even stranger is: hashtags about human trafficking, such as #HumanTrafficking / #EndHumanTrafficking / #StopHumanTrafficking hashtags are NOT censored.

#ChildAbuse and #ChildAbuseMaterial are not banned. #StopChildAbuse is.

It’s almost as if it’s an intentional effort to ignore, suppress, or deny this industrial scale harm to children!?

Why The Censorship? Who Does It Benefit, and Who Is It Hurting?

Big social platforms are known to remove or censor posts and hashtags, shadowban accounts, or even delete or permanently ban accounts who post about child trafficking. When the account creators appeal the platform’s decision, it often leads down an endless maze of unclear responses, such as “We removed this post because it violates our community guidelines.” More often than not, even if the post is factual and does not violate their posted community guidelines, the platform will still refuse to reinstate the content or accounts.

As of the writing of this article, Veterans For Child Rescue and the founder, Craig “Sawman” Sawyer have been banned or deleted multiple times from the following platforms:

  1. Instagram
  2. LinkedIn
  3. Twitter
  4. GoFundMe
  5. YouCaring

Below are some examples of the recent Account Warnings and censorship on TikTok, as well as the responses to our appeals to restore the content.


Why Do Some Think Child Trafficking is a Conspiracy Theory?

Some reasons may include:

  •  High level customers in elite positions of power actively work to enable this criminal industry and keep their behaviors a secret.

We’re all familiar with the Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case. Why hasn’t the client list been released? Why have none of their clients been brought to trial? Why is there no justice for the countless victims?

  •  As the fastest growing and 2nd most profitable criminal enterprise in the world, there is big money protecting the secrecy of it.
  •  Most large online platforms suppress information about child trafficking awareness. They also suppress and censor the messaging and reach of organizations like Veterans For Child Rescue who are dedicated to countering child trafficking and making the USA a safe place for children.
  •  Some political and religious groups mixed some truth with some un-factual stories or exaggerations that resulted in misinformation. This has unfortunately caused some to categorize child trafficking as a theory or political talking point.
  •  There is a massive lack of public awareness and education on this matter. Most people don’t know what to look for or how to help, and therefore, many victims and situations are overlooked.
  •  The reality of this evil is simply too harsh for people to face. If they accept its existence, they’re left with 2 choices: do something, or do nothing. Unfortunately, many people choose to pretend it doesn’t exist so they do not feel responsible to take action.
  •  Survivors are often threatened, coerced, slandered, or shamed into silence. Child abuse and trafficking is difficult to prove, and even more difficult to prosecute. Many antagonists will use gaslighting tactics, call the victims liars, and cause them unwanted attention and negative press. This can cause a domino effect of traumatizing experiences and even put the victim in danger.
  •  Most child abusers and traffickers are not convicted. Despite solid evidence, many abusers go unpunished, or only serve light sentences.

What Can We Do to End Child Trafficking?

1. Raise Awareness

Awareness reduces the predator’s ability to operate. 



  •  CONTRALAND: a shocking documentary exposing child trafficking and predators in the USA

2.     Get Involved in Your Community

  •  Attend local events, school board meetings, elections, and get to know who is running your town.
  •  Write your elected officials and demand harsher punishments for predators, laws to protect children, and support for victims and survivors.
  •  Volunteer at shelters, after school programs, and community events.

3.     Refer

  •  Connect Veterans For Child Rescue with donors, District Attorneys, elected officials, media, and any businesses, groups, or entities willing to stand with us.

4.     Shop & Support

  •  Purchase V4CR merchandise – guaranteed conversation starters! 100% of the proceeds support our mission.
  •  Shop on Smile.Amazon.com and choose “Veterans For Child Rescue” as your charity. Amazon will donate a percentage of your purchase to our cause.⁣⁣

5.     Donate


EDITORS NOTE: This Veterans 4 Child Rescue column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

TSA Director Accused of Fraud, Waste for Unlawfully Deploying Assets to Mexican Border

The head of the federal agency created after 9/11 to protect the nation’s transportation system is accused of fraud, waste, and abuse of authority for unlawfully deploying assets to the Mexican border to perform duties unrelated to transportation, according to a report filed with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General. In the formal complaint to the DHS watchdog, the Air Marshal National Council, which represents thousands of Federal Air Marshals (FAM) nationwide, accuses Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Administrator David Pekoske and FAM Director Tirrell Stevenson of violating federal law and overstepping their authority for assigning the highly trained aviation security specialists to assist the U.S. Border Patrol with the illegal immigration crisis. FAM operates under TSA and both function under DHS.

“The TSA personnel are being sent to El Paso TX, San Diego CA, Laredo TX, McAllen TX, Tucson AZ, and Yuma AZ,” the complaint states, adding that internal agency documents reveal the “highly skilled FAMs” are being sent to the southwest border to perform “Hospital Watch, Transportation, Law Enforcement Searches, Welfare Checks, and Entry Control.” The duties have no relation to TSA’s core mission of transportation security, the filing says, and instead the air marshals will assist migrants who have crossed the border into the United States. TSA was created after 2001 to help prevent another terrorist attack, though the agency is famous for its lapses, including a big one just days ago when a man was allowed to board a plane in Cincinnati with two box cutters. FAM is charged with protecting commercial passenger flights by deterring and countering the risk of terrorist activity. At the very least it seems like a waste to send the highly trained law enforcement agents to the border to babysit illegal immigrants.

“The statute does not give the Administrator any authority to deploy TSA or FAM employees to the southern border to perform non transportation security related matters,” the complaint to the DHS IG states. “Further, under section (g) the statute describes what the Administrators authority is if an emergency, as defined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, is declared.” The act makes clear that the legislative intent is to only allow TSA to exercise authority and deploy its assets for transportation security, the report to the DHS watchdog confirms. “To date Mr. Pekoske nor Mr. Stevenson have declared the deployments to be related to transportation security,” according to the complaint. Furthermore, the duties, “Hospital Watch, Entry Control, Law Enforcement searches, and Transportation,” could not be interpreted to have any nexus to the TSA core mission of transportation security. Additionally, the document notes that Congress has not appropriated any funds in the TSA budget for border security, making any money expended for the cause a violation of the Antideficiency Act which prohibits federal employees from obligating funds unless Congress has approved the amount and purpose of the spending.

A few weeks ago Judicial Watch obtained the DHS memorandum to the nation’s air marshal force announcing that officers would soon be sent to the southern border to help deal with “a surge in irregular migration.” The notice states that “the unprecedented volume of Noncitizen Migrants (NCMs) currently apprehended mandates immediate further action to protect the life and safety of federal personnel and noncitizens in CBP [Customs and Border Protection] custody.” It is the first acknowledgment, albeit leaked involuntarily, by the Biden administration that there is indeed a crisis along the nation’s famously porous southern border. “To support its mission, CBP is seeking federal employees from DHS Components and other federal agencies to be placed on reimbursable TDY assignments to assist in critical support functions,” the widely circulated mandate reads, adding that “LE/FAMS has been directed by DHS to support this request.” Air marshals interviewed by Judicial Watch expressed outrage that they are being pulled from their critical inflight security duties to assist with the mayhem created by the Biden administration’s failed immigration policies.

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Struggle Among The Political Elite Of The Islamic Republic Of Iran

The divisions within the Iranian establishment have deepened and become more evident than they had been because of the current uprising raging across Iran. These divisions seem to exist even among the Iranian clergy. Reformists condemn the government’s violent response while conservatives demand that protestors be “harshly punished” and “sentenced to death.”

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly called on the political forces to refrain from actions that could risk Iran’s unity and integrity. In the past, Khamenei warned that “bipolarity is detrimental to the country,” adding that the “enemies are waiting to take advantage of any polarity or conflict” among Iran’s political forces.[1]

However, the recent developments in the country have once again revealed the depth of the great political multi-polarity within the Iranian establishment. In a commentary in the reformist Etemad newspaper, former government spokesman and long-time member of Iran’s intelligence community, Ali Rabiei, warned that Iran may face “bloody confrontations,” as the country’s uprising has been raging on for almost two months. He further stressed that there is a growing “pressure” from Iranian ultraconservatives “to disrupt the role of intermediary groups,” and monopolize power. Rabiei also stated: “The political participation of various political groups and parties was extremely limited in two consecutive elections. As a result, the ballot box lost its function of creating mediators, who played as go-betweens among various generations and their demands.”[2]

The political conflict between the reformist and conservative factions shaped Iranian politics for almost two decades. However, the current conflicts are also within the conservative faction that rules the country, facing the regime with a threatening internal infight.

Ultraconservatives Vs. Neoconservatives

Contradictory and often inflammatory remarks from regime insiders illustrate the growing disunity within the Iranian establishment.

In an interview with the state-sponsored media outlet, Ettela’at, commenting on the fact that at least 50 percent of Iranian women do not observe the regime-imposed dress code, Khamenei’s senior aide Ali Larijani stated: “When a behavior is so widely prevalent in the society it is wrong to involve the police in a bid to curb that behavior.”[3] He then added that “dialogue” is necessary with protesters.[4] Meanwhile, Ebrahim Rezaei, a member of the National Security Committee, told Mehr News Agency: “One should definitely not appease those who have taken up weapons or behave violently against the system and the nation or are related to foreign security services, because soft treatment of these people and rioters is a betrayal of the country’s security and the nation.”[5]

Hence, it is possible to notice that, inside the conservative camp, there are two main currents of how to approach the protests. In fact, since the 2005 elections and the end of Iran’s reformist era (1997-2005), Iranian conservatives have been divided into two groups: extremist hardliners (ultraconservatives/traditional conservatives) and neoconservatives (neocons). Khamenei supports both sides, but, undoubtedly, he tends to prefer the hardliners over the neocons.

Ultraconservatives are Iran’s most right-wing party – they can be defined as “far-right.” They have a political party called Jebha-ye paydari-e enqelab-e eslami (“Front of Islamic Revolution Stability” aka the Paydari party). The party’s members are predominantly veterans of the 1980s Iran-Iraq War and their worldview is thus shaped by their wartime experience. They are extremely anti-West, anti-Saudi Arabia, and anti-Israel. Basically, the IRGC and Khamenei’s inner circle belong to this faction.

The Front’s spiritual leader used to be Ayatollah Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi, who died in 2021. Since his death, current President Ebrahim Raisi and Saeed Jalili (who is nicknamed the “living martyr,” after losing the lower portion of his right leg fighting in the Iran-Iraq War) are the behind-the-scenes leaders of this front. They reject any calls for reform and insist on a strict observance of shari’a. For example, they established the Morality Police in 2005 to strictly enforce the regime’s dress code.

On the other hand, the “neoconservatives” can be defined as “centrist-rightists.” They have adopted some “reformist” ideas, such as the necessity of changes in the government regulations but without making major structural changes. Neocons started as a movement in 2005, as a “third way” between Iran’s reformist and traditionalist conservatives (i.e., ultraconservatives).

The rivalry between the neoconservatives and ultraconservatives (also pejoratively called “super-revolutionaries”) in Iran has been apparent in the Assembly of Experts, City Council, and Parliament (Majlis) elections since the mid-2000s, but it has become more obvious and intense during the current political unrest. In fact, neocons have been accusing the ultraconservatives in the Ebrahim Raisi government of incompetence and inability to solve the current crisis.

The Neocons’ Plans For A “New Governance”

Neoconservatives are led by Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s Parliament Speaker and former IRGC commander, who recently accused ultraconservatives of “opening their mouth and saying anything and doing anything without calculating the consequences of their behavior.”[6] London-based media outlet Iran International mentioned that Ghalibaf’s inner circle has also said that ultraconservatives are stoking the ongoing protests in the country with “their hardline positions and behavior that have annoyed Iranians from all walks of life.”[7]

It is worth noting that Ghalibaf recently stated that he promoted the idea of establishing a “new governance” and bring about reforms, based on new plans that would initiate “innovative” and “great” changes in all levels of the government. However, he then added: “I hope security will be completely restored in the country soon, so that legitimate and necessary changes would begin to establish a new governance in economic, social and political areas within the framework of the Islamic Republic.”[8] The fact that Ghalibaf considers postponing these reforms until “security is completely restored” (i.e., the protests are ended) may indicate (as reformists stressed) that there is no real will to implement a “new governance.”

Nevertheless, Ghalibaf’s call for reforms found several supporters among conservatives. Mohammad Saeed Ahadian, a conservative journalist related by marriage to Ayatollah Khamenei, stressed in the IRGC-affiliated Fars News Agency that the recent situation has shown the necessity of urgent reforms in the country. He remarked that Ghalibaf’s proposal for “new governance” is based on Khamenei’s orders.[9] Furthermore, on November 10, Ahadian tweeted that Ghalibaf’s reform plan was welcomed by the country’s ruling elites. However, he said that the existing vagueness of some points of the plan brought the “super-revolutionaries” to find an excuse to “destroy” the proposal for reforms, as “they did it before” in the past.[10]

Iran International reported that Ghalibaf’s camp believes that, after the protests end, the regime will not collapse, but rather the neocons will take over the ultraconservatives. “Neocons insist that once the country leaves behind the current wave of nationwide protests, everything will be ready for unseating the Paydari Party,” wrote Iran International, adding that the neocons want to change all the ministers that are believed were imposed by Saeed Jalili, Ghalibaf’s political adversary, in the Raisi government.

Critical Voices In Qom

On November 9, in order to rally the regime supporters around ultraconservatives, Kayhan newspaper, which is funded by Iran’s Supreme Leader, stated: “One of the dreams and hopes of this movement is that in the future after the Islamic Republic is toppled, homosexuality will be legalized and spread in Iran, the day after the downfall of the Islamic Republic will be nothing less than hell.”[11]

However, some clerics have raised their critical voices against the ultraconservatives even in Qom, Iran’s religious capital. For instance, on November 13, Hojatoleslam Mohammad Ali Ayazi, a prominent Iranian cleric in the city, blamed the ultraconservatives for taking harsh stances against the protestors and stressed that “objection is a human right.” He then added: “In autocratic systems, they stigmatize and denounce their opponents as irreligious, and then use this stigma as an excuse to deal harshly with their opponents.”[12]

Given the rising criticism against ultraconservatives, some Iranian activists in social media suggested that Ghalibaf’s statement about implementing legitimate changes, if the situation calms down, is a “clear message” for the people: the elite has “accepted defeat and is retreating,” by offering reforms.[13] In fact, the pro-reform newspaper Etemad suggested that this is a golden opportunity for the neocons that can use the protests to attack the ultraconservatives for Iran’s problems and take over.[14]

Reformists Call For Referendum And “Self-Reforming” System

Aside from conservatives and neocons, the Islamic republic’s political elite comprises also of reformists, which represent the “left wing” of the Iranian politics. They are known to be “pragmatists,” they want to improve Iran’s regional and international relations and ease restrictions inside the country. Nevertheless, both reformists and conservatives support the Islamic Republic’s system of government.

Historically, reformists were led by former Presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami. The Supreme Leader Khamenei managed to purge the government of reformists first in 2005 with the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, followed by the brutal crackdown on reformists after the 2009 green movement. It is also worth noting that Rafsanjani’s daughter Fatima always claimed that her father did not die of a natural death, as the official report stated in 2017.[15] Most recently, Rafsanjani’s other daughter Faezeh was arrested in Tehran for “inciting” the ongoing riots.[16]

Finally in 2021, Khamenei himself removed all the reformist and even moderate conservative candidates for presidency to ensure the success of the current ultraconservative President Ebrahim Raisi, in the election of that year. The reformists are now led by former associates of Khatami and Rafsanjani.

On November 9, as ultraconservatives keep supporting harsh crackdown on protests, Iran’s Reform Front, which was founded in March 2021 by Khatami’s associates and is formed by parties from Iran’s reformist camp, issued a statement calling for a referendum and the immediate end of violence against protesters.

The statement stressed: “The protests are the outcome of many years of denial of the people’s problems [by the government] and refusal to recognize them, as well as being the product of accrued and unsolved issues, such as humiliation and suppression of the people. Unfortunately, despite 50 days having already passed [since the beginning of the protests], there are still no signs of an effective, realistic solutions by the ruling institutions for the current protests and the widespread social unrest.”

The statement then accused the Ministry of Intelligence and the IRGC Intelligence Organization of not understanding that what they consider to be “the solution” to the current crisis is instead “the problem itself” and the “root cause” of the crisis.

The statement warned: “Collapse and subversion threaten the regimes that either maintain their stubborn positions against society’s demands, like the Gaddafi regime, or showed flexibility and initiated changes when it was too late, like the Pahlavi regime.” Therefore, Iran’s Reform Front suggested starting “endogenous changes and reforms,” in order to meet the “people’s demands.” “[This is] the best and at the same time the least expensive way to overcome the crisis and prevent the country’s descent into the abyss,” the statement assessed. [17]

Most importantly, the Reform Front’s statement proposed the organization of a referendum in the country, to bring “immediate, courageous, and innovative changes” and open an “effective dialogue on a national scale.”

The statement recommended: “This first action is even possible by relying on the democratic approach of the current Constitution and by implementing it in full, including… Article 59 on the organization of a referendum.” It then added: “However, in order to create fundamental reforms and in order to completely solve the problems related to the incorrect processes in the country, it seems that an effective measure is to solve the ambiguities, flaws, and contradictions of the existing Constitution, in a peaceful atmosphere, during a legal process and based on the collective wisdom and national will of all Iranians.”[18]

Azar Mansouri, the general secretary of the reformist Union of Islamic Iran People Party, Iran’s main reformist party led by Khatami’s former aides, also said in a tweet that the “lack of political legitimacy [of the government] is the most obvious threat to the country’s national security.”[19]

It is worth noting that, at the end of September, a few days after the spread of the protests all around the country, the Union of Islamic Iran People Party called on the Iranian government to “prepare the legal elements necessary for the repeal of the law on the mandatory hijab.”[20][21]

Most recently, Khatami himself stated: “Overthrowing [the regime] is not possible or desirable. However, the continuation of the current situation is widening the grounds of a social collapse that could happen at any moment. Hence, the least expensive and most beneficial solution is the ‘self-reforming’ system [i.e., to promote social, political, and economic reforms without dismantling the Islamic republic].”[22]

Ultraconservatives Vs. Reformists

The IRGC daily newspaper Javan strongly criticized the Reform Front for its statement. In an article, Javan called the Reform Front an “opportunistic” political movement trying to take advantage of the situation for its own interests. It then accused it of “changing the nature” of the “riots,” describing them as simple “protests.” Javan criticized the political movement for accusing the government of being the source of the uprising in the country while ignoring the “foreign origin” of the revolt.[23]

During the past two months, Khamenei himself has made it clear that he wants the protesters to be punished severely, insisting that the uprising is supported by foreign services.

As reported by Iran International, the Islamic Republic’s Army Ground Forces Commander, Kiumars Heydari, has recently threatened harsher responses to the protesters, that he defined as “flies,” if Khamenei orders it.[24]

Neoconservatives May Establish An Alliance With Reformists

There are currently three factions within Iranian ruling elite with different agendas and proposing different policies to overcome the current crisis. Even though the three of them want to keep alive the Islamic Republic regime, the current protests are showing strong divisions inside the political elite: reformists call for structural changes in the system to grant people greater freedom through holding a referendum; ultraconservatives insist on suppressing the uprising and retaining the status quo; and neoconservatives seek reforms without making structural changes.

This polarization between neoconservatives and ultraconservatives at the heart of the ruling establishment, with only a small reformist faction, renders Iranian politics potentially explosive, especially if a rift within the conservative faction leads to a power struggle, with neoconservatives moving toward establishing an alliance with reformists.

However, political divisions within the current ruling elites may not threaten the regime, as Khamenei and his inner circle control the government, unless the political infighting leads to military infighting. The IRGC under Khamenei, which is considered Iran’s “deep state,” continue to play a zero-sum game, as it considers that to compromise with the protesters would be a sign of weakness that will be exploited by “the enemy.” It is also unlikely that the Raisi government would embark upon a radical reform plan that would structurally alter the system.

Even if conservatives move toward greater openness, entrenched conservative clerics would attempt to repress dissident views and impose Shia shari’a law upon Iranians, as long as they remain powerful militarily or politically. Furthermore, Khamenei has to continue to support his devout ultraconservatives, particularly the IRGC, if he wants to keep retaining his authoritative position and the regime’s ideological heritage. Yet, discontent among the factions will continue to grow, making the political situation in the country more unstable.


International media and public statements by Iranian officials fail to see that the protests in Iran are not only about Iran’s hijab law. The protests will continue even if this law is abolished; the protesters have made it clear that they aim at overthrowing the regime. In particular, ethnic minorities are fighting for the ethnic and human rights of which they have been deprived for over a century.

The protesters believe that the Iranian regime cannot be fixed, therefore they want nothing less than regime change. This is made clear by the slogans of the uprising: “Reformist, hardliner, it is over!” “Death to the whole apparatus of power, death to the Islamic Republic,” and “we don’t want referendums, we want regime change!”[25]

Hence, the people – not the government, and not the political factions – will probably have the last say in Iran this time. Protesters have so far refused to back down despite facing a brutal crackdown. It may take months or years, but the protesters will likely continue to fight until they overthrow the Islamic Republic regime.


Himdad Mustafa

Himdad Mustafa is a Kurdish scholar and expert on Kurdish and Iranian affairs.


[1] Tasnimnews.com/en/news/2016/09/26/1196641/leader-urges-iranian-political-figures-to-avert-polarity-in-society, September 26, 2016.

[2] Iranintl.com/en/202211078932, November 7, 2022; Etemadnewspaper.ir, November 2, 2022.

[3] Iranintl.com/en/202210159406, October 15, 2022.

[4] Ettelaat.com/mobile/archives/306255, October 12, 2022.

[5] Mehrnews.com/news/, November 12, 2022.

[6] Iranintl.com/en/202210287847, October 28, 2022.

[7] Iranintl.com/en/202210287847, October 28, 2022.

[8] Iranintl.com/en/202211096048, November 9, 2022;Etemadnewspaper.ir, November 8, 2022.

[9] Farsnews.ir, November 10, 2022.

[10] Twitter.com/ahadian_ir/status/1590690572544913410?cxt=HHwWhMDRwbupopMsAAAA, November 10, 2022.

[11] Sharghdaily.com/%D8%A8%D8%AE%D8%B4-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA-6/860943-%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D8%AC%D9%85%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C-%D8%AC%D9%87%D9%86%D9%85-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA, November 9, 2022.

[12] Twitter.com/SharghDaily/status/1591759027402264576?cxt=HHwWgMCqxdyZiJcsAAAA, November 13, 2022.

[13] Twitter.com/rezahajilou/status/1589274131568431104, November 6, 2022.

[14] Iranintl.com/en/202211096048, November 9, 2022.

[15] Aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/rafsanjani-didn-t-die-natural-death-says-daughter/1359527, January 8, 2019.

[16] Arabnews.com/node/2171631/middle-east, September 29, 2022.

[17]Etemadnewspaper-ir.translate.goog/fa/main/detail/193142/%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B6%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%87-%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA?_x_tr_sl=fa&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=iw&_x_tr_pto=wapp, November 10, 2022.

[18] Etemadnewspaper-ir.translate.goog/fa/main/detail/193142/%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B6%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%87-%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA?_x_tr_sl=fa&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=iw&_x_tr_pto=wapp, November 10, 2022.

[19] Twitter.com/MansooriAzar/status/1589529844488208384?t=MMs1S1KDsIFSpXxLF513cA&s=19, November 7, 2022.

[20] Voanews.com/a/iran-main-reformist-party-urges-end-to-mandatory-dress-code/6761732.html, September 24, 2022.

[21] It is worth noting that, while reformists showed their readiness to support the repeal of the law on mandatory hijab, ultraconservatives are not inclined to give up. Ultraconservative cleric Mojtaba Zolnouri, a member of the Iranian parliament from Qom, urged the authorities to enforce hijab strictly and said: “Women who do not cover their hair should be sentenced to 74 lashes… A notice served by the morality police will not be enough for women who take off their hijab.” Iranintl.com/en/202210189009, October 18, 2022.

[22] Instagram.com/p/Ck8N7gPoA1r/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y%3D, November 14, 2022.

[23] Javanonline.ir/fa/news/1114656/%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%87%D9%87-%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%AC%D8%B2%DB%8C%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%B7%D9%84%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D9%88%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%86%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1-%DA%A9%D8%B1%D8%AF, November 9, 2022.

[24] Iranintl.com/en/202211099705, November 9, 2022.

[25] Euronews.com/2022/11/11/iran-women-reformists-analysis, November 11, 2022.

EDITORS NOTE: This MEMRI Daily Brief No. 430 is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.